Thread Tools

Thought this was a surprise for a country like France. Although the article does mention some citizens leaving France if the measure was passed.

French court rejects 75 percent millionaires' tax

PARIS (Reuters) - France's Constitutional Council on Saturday rejected a 75 percent upper income tax rate to be introduced in 2013 in a setback to Socialist President Francois Hollande's push to make the rich contribute more to cutting the public deficit.

The Council ruled that the planned 75 percent tax on annual income above 1 million euros ($1.32 million) - a flagship measure of Hollande's election campaign - was unfair in the way it would be applied to different households.

Apparently this may only be a temporary setback for the loons in office. They've said they're going to rewrite the legislation so that it conforms to the courts objections, and eventually passes.

On a sane note, can you imagine the ignorance, and outright lunacy, of implementing a 75% tax rate on income? If anyone involved is "shocked, stunned, or surprised" by the mass exodus of high income earners, they're complete and utter fools. I'd leave in a nano second if I made millions per year. If I were an actor, athlete, or whatever, I'd never, ever do work there. Unless there are some kind of quirks to who pays, can you imagine being a soccer player for example, like Zoltan Ibrahimovich playing for PSG (Paris pro team), making say $10 million euros per, and having to give 75% of everything over $1 million euros to the French government? That's outright insane. I'd never, ever play there. 75%!!!!!!!

From Roosevelt to Eisenhower our top tax bracket was over 90%. Under Kennedy, it was 70%. Obviously, if you look at our economic history, you would be hard pressed to make a case that in all the intervening years our economy suffered as a result of high taxes on the wealthy. Why anyone would see this setback as good news is beyond me, but then again Americans tend to worship wealth, celebrity, and other such nonsense. I suppose in the absence of kings, we can still worship mammon.

Apparently this may only be a temporary setback for the loons in office. They've said they're going to rewrite the legislation so that it conforms to the courts objections, and eventually passes.

On a sane note, can you imagine the ignorance, and outright lunacy, of implementing a 75% tax rate on income? If anyone involved is "shocked, stunned, or surprised" by the mass exodus of high income earners, they're complete and utter fools. I'd leave in a nano second if I made millions per year. If I were an actor, athlete, or whatever, I'd never, ever do work there. Unless there are some kind of quirks to who pays, can you imagine being a soccer player for example, like Zoltan Ibrahimovich playing for PSG (Paris pro team), making say $10 million euros per, and having to give 75% of everything over $1 million euros to the French government? That's outright insane. I'd never, ever play there. 75%!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Anyone is replaceable, don't let the door hit you on the way out....Cry cry cry cry, *****,*****,*****, moan,moan,moan....Poor rich people....I feel so bad for them!:bricks:

From Roosevelt to Eisenhower our top tax bracket was over 90%. Under Kennedy, it was 70%. Obviously, if you look at our economic history, you would be hard pressed to make a case that in all the intervening years our economy suffered as a result of high taxes on the wealthy. Why anyone would see this setback as good news is beyond me, but then again Americans tend to worship wealth, celebrity, and other such nonsense. I suppose in the absence of kings, we can still worship mammon.

Click to expand...

I think most of us worship FAIRNESS. No gov't should every get more of someone's income than the person earning it.

To believe otherwise is nuts to me.

You can't compare Roosevelt (depression days) or the golden age of American economy (Eisenhower) to today.

Today, people will easily re-locate to a lower tax nation in heart-beat if we tax them at very high levels. And one can't blame them either.

I think we have 2 issues going on simultaneously.

1. What is a fair tax for each income level?

2. People on government assistance often live at the same standards as an average American family earning the average income.

So yes, wealthy Americans need to pay more taxes, I agree. But no family on gov't assistance should be living at the same standards as a working family.

the painful reality in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative - in the form of actual disposable income - to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045."

Click to expand...

Also, from a 2 year study by the Heritage Foundation;

- The typical âpoorâ household in America has a car

- 78% of âpoorâ households in America have air conditioning

- 64% of âpoorâ households in America have cable or satellite TV .. most have two TVs, along with a DVD player and VCR

- Most âpoorâ households in America with children have a gaming system such as an Xbox or PlayStation

- 38% of âpoorâ households in America have a personal computer

- Most âpoorâ households in America have a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. They also have other household appliances such as a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

- The typical âpoorâ American has more living space than the average European.

- The typical âpoorâ American family is able to obtain medical care when needed.

- The average âpoorâ household in America claims to have sufficient funds to meet all essential needs.

Click to expand...

No wonder why so many Americans want our wealthy to pay more! So Americans in poverty can live at the average standard of working Americans! Very, very sad....

From Roosevelt to Eisenhower our top tax bracket was over 90%. Under Kennedy, it was 70%. Obviously, if you look at our economic history, you would be hard pressed to make a case that in all the intervening years our economy suffered as a result of high taxes on the wealthy. Why anyone would see this setback as good news is beyond me, but then again Americans tend to worship wealth, celebrity, and other such nonsense. I suppose in the absence of kings, we can still worship mammon.

Click to expand...

That 90% thing is all myth Patters.

that was the tax rate for earnings over $200,000 back then which today = @ 2.5 million.

Also taxes were paid on taxable income and not earned income.
You could deduct everything back then ... even your spouses lunch.

Overall without getting into boring statistics they paid around 40% back in the 40's.

From fiscal year 1946 to fiscal year 2007, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9%. 2009 tax collections, at 15% of GDP, were the lowest level of the past 50 years and 4.5 percentage points lower than Hauser's law suggests.

Click to expand...

Our long recession has pushed that number to a very low 15% in 2009.
some disagree with Hauser but I think they are mostly saying the same thing as to the problem.

Economist Mike Kimel, writing for the Angry Bear website, has stated that Hauser's Law is misleading as it sweeps large differences under the table. He wrote that tax revenue is higher in the years following a tax increase and lower in the years following a tax cut.

He defined the time periods 1951-1953, 1967-1968, and 1991-2001 as "tax hike eras",

and

1953-1967, 1969-1991, 2001-2010 as "tax cut eras", and points out that tax revenues increase in "tax hike eras" and that tax cuts lead to lower revenues.

Click to expand...

So the tax cuts really have not paid off due to a variety of factors. IMO we need to get to at least the 21% level by increasing taxes on everyone earning over $50,000 for singles and $75,000 for married couples. make the increase progressive adding say .5% increase on the low end and raising up to a top tier of the + $500,000 people.

All should pay more and we need to eliminate loopholes and tax havens as much as possible. We need to move away from a federalist system and start a national sales tax on everything except for food, clothing and medical expenses. That would include houses, cars, boats, planes and even services and vacations and golf and everything including peanuts on airplanes ... every dollar spent should be taxed and the high spenders (rich) would truly pay more.

Also we need to move away from the tax cut myth which is all political ... it does not help in the long run.

From Roosevelt to Eisenhower our top tax bracket was over 90%. Under Kennedy, it was 70%. Obviously, if you look at our economic history, you would be hard pressed to make a case that in all the intervening years our economy suffered as a result of high taxes on the wealthy. Why anyone would see this setback as good news is beyond me, but then again Americans tend to worship wealth, celebrity, and other such nonsense. I suppose in the absence of kings, we can still worship mammon.

Click to expand...

Um.....the economy suffered drastically during the FDR years with high taxes. Just ask FDR's Secretary of the Treasury....he was beyond worried that business growth was very very poor.

From Roosevelt to Eisenhower our top tax bracket was over 90%. Under Kennedy, it was 70%. Obviously, if you look at our economic history, you would be hard pressed to make a case that in all the intervening years our economy suffered as a result of high taxes on the wealthy. Why anyone would see this setback as good news is beyond me, but then again Americans tend to worship wealth, celebrity, and other such nonsense. I suppose in the absence of kings, we can still worship mammon.

Click to expand...

This is why we're really doomed, or in the situation we're in. People either aren't informed, but speak as if they are, or they are informed, but intentionally choose to be disengenuous. That 90% rate was paid by virtually no one, if not no one, and the facts behind it are irrelevent and unapplicable in the 21st century.

So the tax cuts really have not paid off due to a variety of factors. IMO we need to get to at least the 21% level by increasing taxes on everyone earning over $50,000 for singles and $75,000 for married couples. make the increase progressive adding say .5% increase on the low end and raising up to a top tier of the + $500,000 people.

All should pay more and we need to eliminate loopholes and tax havens as much as possible. We need to move away from a federalist system and start a national sales tax on everything except for food, clothing and medical expenses. That would include houses, cars, boats, planes and even services and vacations and golf and everything including peanuts on airplanes ... every dollar spent should be taxed and the high spenders (rich) would truly pay more.

Also we need to move away from the tax cut myth which is all political ... it does not help in the long run.

Click to expand...

Facts and reality are irrelevent to the ignorant and disengenuous among us.

At first I really liked the idea of a consumption tax. I'd only support one if income taxes were elimated as part of it's implementation. I would never, ever support the existence of an income tax, and a national sales tax. It's one or the other, not both.

This is why we're really doomed, or in the situation we're in. People either aren't informed, but speak as if they are, or they are informed, but intentionally choose to be disengenuous. That 90% rate was paid by virtually no one, if not no one, and the facts behind it are irrelevent and unapplicable in the 21st century.

Facts and reality are irrelevent to the ignorant and disengenuous among us.

At first I really liked the idea of a consumption tax. I'd only support one if income taxes were elimated as part of it's implementation. I would never, ever support the existence of an income tax, and a national sales tax. It's one or the other, not both.

No wonder why so many Americans want our wealthy to pay more! So Americans in poverty can live at the average standard of working Americans! Very, very sad....

moan,moan,moan....Poor poor people....I feel so bad for them!:bricks:

Click to expand...

Could you find a more biased source than the conservative Heritage foundation? Of course, the typical poor family has a car because they often live in rural areas. In cities, they do not typically have cars and when they do, they use their cars selectively because of the costs. And of course, poor people have such "luxuries" as air conditioning, and Wii (usually used). Poor people get gifts from family, find cheap things at thrift stores, save up when they can to buy things that are very important to them, and poor people are more often than not are working people, who may have part-time work at minimum wage, and cannot get better jobs. The Heritage Foundations study is such a fraud. People may have larger homes than in Europe, but has nothing to do with them living in the lap of luxury. I have a 900 sq foot condo in a great area. If I wanted to move out of Cambridge, I could sell it and buy a 3500 sq. foot home in Chelsea. with money left over.

I think you have to get over the idea that life is fair. It's not. Some people are just luckier than others. Taxes are not designed for fairness, they are designed to address all the difficult challenges a nation faces. In an ideal world, there would be no taxes at all, but in a world like ours, we need taxes. You can disagree with the poor parent who buys his kid a used Wii or who buys a $600 car to try to find work, but how much do you really think we can cut from services for poor people? In the meantime, if the government needs more money right or wrong, let it turn to those who have benefitted most from the government, namely the wealthy. If it was not for our laws and system of government, they probably would not be as wealthy.

Could you find a more biased source than the conservative Heritage foundation? Of course, the typical poor family has a car because they often live in rural areas. In cities, they do not typically have cars and when they do, they use their cars selectively because of the costs. And of course, poor people have such "luxuries" as air conditioning, and Wii (usually used). Poor people get gifts from family, find cheap things at thrift stores, save up when they can to buy things that are very important to them, and poor people are more often than not are working people, who may have part-time work at minimum wage, and cannot get better jobs. The Heritage Foundations study is such a fraud. People may have larger homes than in Europe, but has nothing to do with them living in the lap of luxury. I have a 900 sq foot condo in a great area. If I wanted to move out of Cambridge, I could sell it and buy a 3500 sq. foot home in Chelsea. with money left over.

I think you have to get over the idea that life is fair. It's not. Some people are just luckier than others. Taxes are not designed for fairness, they are designed to address all the difficult challenges a nation faces. In an ideal world, there would be no taxes at all, but in a world like ours, we need taxes. You can disagree with the poor parent who buys his kid a used Wii or who buys a $600 car to try to find work, but how much do you really think we can cut from services for poor people? In the meantime, if the government needs more money right or wrong, let it turn to those who have benefitted most from the government, namely the wealthy. If it was not for our laws and system of government, they probably would not be as wealthy.

Click to expand...

The original facts I posted were not from the HF. It was factual.

So do you agree that no one on gov't assistance should live at the same standard of the average American working family or not?

So do you agree that no one on gov't assistance should live at the same standard of the average American working family or not?

Click to expand...

Yes, in general I agree. As I've always said, we should have workfare, not welfare, because I believe that 95% of the really poor would rather work than get aid. The problem, though, with workfare, is that it's far more costly than handouts.